Interesting article on doing less (trainers)

[ThreeWishes]

Agreed. Good for you. People that expect their horse be turned out at 6 am. In a large pasture. To come back in and be checked over 12-14 hours later. To a clean filled stall. With a suitable riding area and a bathroom And a night check at 9.

Or those that want full turnout. But make sure my horse is okay. In the morning at noon at night. You just can’t win. It’s why I’d never do boarders. They want the world without realizing the cost. Of time. Of attention. Of basic hay feed upkeep. And don’t go on vacation. Don’t drive to your doctor for the afternoon. It’s untenable. Bottom line to me is appreciate your boarding situation. Especially if you’re doing less than 100% of the work or the money to have it. It’s exhausting.

[Mounted]

I certainly do not think that barn owners or trainers should subsidize clients’ hobbies by charging below marginal cost. I also don’t think that the point Matt Brown was making in his original article was that it was necessary to raise prices in order to cover costs. My interpretation was that he was advocating a pivot in the business to clients who were willing to pay more for a higher level of service – which is a choice that he and any other professional are certainly entitled to make, but not the same as recommending sound business practices at all levels of the industry. Had the article said “make sure to fully understand your costs, including maintenance and other less observable expenses, and price your services to cover them,” I would have been completely supportive. But I read it as “offer more exclusive and boutique services to the smaller number of clients who can afford that and want to pay for it, and get rid of other clients who do not want to play at that level.”

Some costs are outside the control of business owners and they non-negotiably need to be covered by the prices they charge. Others are choices. For example, there are all kinds of amenities that professionals – who spend all day at the barn – may value more than clients. Those things cost real money, and so yes, if they are provided, then the costs have to be covered. But I don’t think it would be good for the industry to encourage everyone to offer only the fanciest amenities, to only the clients who can afford them. That’s not exactly what the article promoted, but I think it’s in the same line of thinking.

Similarly, time is in fact money, and if trainers spend hours each week providing updates about horses, chatting about individual goals and show schedules, etc. outside of scheduled lessons, then the costs associated with training or lessons need to cover that time. But I would not support an argument that everyone should only offer that sort of concierge service package at the price point it demands, because it’s a more satisfying way to work with clients. I think it’s important to recognize that there is a huge market for good quality training with less personalized service outside of the ring. My read of the article was essentially that it’s more fun to serve a high end market, so trainers should orient their businesses that way in order to be more satisfied with their jobs. Certainly, anyone who feels that way is has every right to try to make a go of that business model, but I stand by my initial assessment that recommending it as the path towards a balanced career in the horse business is tone deaf. That is nowhere near suggesting that professionals subsidize clients’ hobbies.

[enjoytheride]

Because counting on a “income producing asset” to pay your mortgage on your hobby farm is horrible financial advice. Making some extra money above and beyond that is entirely different. You should never put yourself into a position where you have something like boarders paying board on time being what makes you able to pay your mortgage.

[2bayboys]

@enjoytheride

Because counting on a “income producing asset” to pay your mortgage is horrible financial advice. Making some extra money above and beyond that is entirely different.

Well, then nobody will buy a farm to board horses, if the income produced can’t be expected to contribute to paying for the farm.

[Impractical_Horsewoman]

@Mounted

But I read it as “offer more exclusive and boutique services to the smaller number of clients who can afford that and want to pay for it, and get rid of other clients who do not want to play at that level.”

So, let’s say that a freelance service provider chooses to focus on a more exclusive clientele, because they can work fewer hours, enjoy that type of work more, and can work a more regular schedule? If that wasn’t a horse-related business, would you feel differently?

Let’s say an SAT tutoring service is highly in demand. They raise their prices. They start marketing to much more affluent clients. The parents of students who can’t afford this get upset. The owner says, “I’ve been working hard to build my business, now I can work fewer hours and get to bed at a reasonable hour. I have to charge this to make a living, the other option is to work an insane amount of hour and charge very little.” Is that unethical?

Or a restaurant raises its prices, offers more bougie fare, limits its hours, and the local regulars complain they can’t afford the service?

I think it’s much more triggering when it’s an animal (or, for that matter, health-related issue) when economics pop up. Although education and food may also be similarly triggering.

I know some doctors who are now operating on a concierge model (charging fees to people who can afford it, just to be part of their practice). The doctors have a loyal following, so people who can afford it pay for the extra-attentive care, while those who can’t have to look elsewhere.

[enjoytheride]

First, I was specifically talking about a hobby farm. You shouldn’t buy a hobby farm and expect a couple stalls to help make ends meet on your mortgage.

However,

Have you ever been at a boarding barn where they can’t afford to buy hay because a couple boarders were late on board or a boarder left without enough notice to get someone in the empty stall fast enough?

Or the barn owner gets injured and they can’t afford to give anyone a discount on board for cleaning stalls?

[2bayboys]

@enjoytheride

Have you ever been at a boarding barn where they can’t afford to buy hay because a couple boarders were late on board?

No I have not.

I have, however, run a boarding operation where non payers had to be kicked out.

But I’m not sure how keeping boarding costs low so more people could presumably afford it would help in that situation.

[Amberley]

@hey101

And we were full. I had 20 horses in here. Going to all the local and further afield shows.

I think the point is that you cannot make money on only 20 horses if you board and show and train and are off property a lot. There is no way you can make that work because there are not enough hours in the day and you are too small to afford staff. I have seen people try to do it, I have reviewed their business plans, I have penciled it out myself and it does. not. work. 40 is the floor for that business model and ideally you also offer retirement field board and have housing on site for staff and do some sales and various other things to reduce overhead and bring in income on your base costs.

Or, and this is common, you have a spouse with a second salary paying a good chunk of the mortgage, which is fair enough as it is their primary residence too and they benefit from the equity in the property which is typically considerable.

[Impractical_Horsewoman]

I’ve been at a barn as a lesson student (early on in my re-riding days) when I was told on a number of occasions, “I’m glad you came for your lesson today, otherwise I couldn’t pay the hay guy.” (Often when it was cold or during the holidays and a number of her regular students were lessoning less.) The barn closed a year or two after I left.

The barn was super-super cheap, but one of my friends who moved her horse shortly after I left said it was because her horse colicked, the hay was so awful. (The vet told her this!)

[enjoytheride]

My point to that is that a hobby farm owner shouldn’t buy a hobby farm and expect a couple boarders to help pay their mortgage. Those boarders leave or don’t pay they’re a few missed payments away from losing their farm.

Extra income? Sure.

There are very very few actual boarding barns where board is the only way the mortgage gets paid for a reason. MOST barn owners have a second source of income that isn’t horses. Usually a spouse.

I certainly don’t have an answer. If you raise prices too much then you price everyone out of owning horses and then the farm gets sold and developed and that’s it.

[2bayboys]

@Impractical_Horsewoman

I’ve been at a barn as a lesson student (early on in my re-riding days) when I was told on a number of occasions, “I’m glad you came for your lesson today, otherwise I couldn’t pay the hay guy.” (Often when it was cold or during the holidays and a number of her regular students were lessoning less.) The barn closed a year or two after I left.

The barn was super-super cheap, but one of my friends who moved her horse shortly after I left said it was because her horse colicked, the hay was so awful. (The vet told her this!)

To me that just says that in many horse businesses the margins are so slim that losing one lesson client in a week means you can’t pay your operating expenses. And that’s not sustainable as a business.

[hey101]

You are 100% correct. Our revenue looked great. Six figures. But our EBITDA year after year was horrible. And I always forgot about the freaking depreciation! Like I would do my I/E report in January and send it off to my CPA absolutely sure we’ve made a profit that year and no.

Our property cannot sustain 40 horses. Not many places in our area Can.

I remember one time I fell asleep, mucking a stall at like 9pm. Hub came in to find me standing up, leaning on the pitchfork and mostly sound asleep. We hired a guy to help us with Stalls after that. Further contributing to our downfall.

[2bayboys]

I don’t know the answer either. I do think that within my lifetime there are many things with horses that will simply not be available except to the very wealthy.

[Aussie_2020]

I’m getting a feel from your post that you think it’s wrong in keeping costs low to attract more clients because you’re just subsidizing those clients. In my view, keeping costs low to attract clients is the way a lot of barns with not much to offer stay full. If you have the type of facility to attract monied clients by all means, raise your prices.

[2bayboys]

@Aussie_2020

I’m getting a feel from your post that you think it’s wrong in keeping costs low to attract more clients because you’re just subsidizing those clients. In my view, keeping costs low to attract clients is the way a lot of barns with not much to offer stay full. If you have the type of facility to attract monied clients by all means, raise your prices.

My experience has been lower cost means sacrificing quality of care. Cheap hay. Unsafe fencing. Barn staff with no horse knowledge so they don’t recognize a colic or lost shoe or swollen ankle.

I absolutely believe that the cost of board should cover the actual costs of maintaining that horse PLUS the daily cost of labor that ensures a certain quality of life for the horse. I keep my horses at home and I know I can’t feed one for less than $300 per month. So if I’m paying $450 for board, that’s $5 per day that I’m paying for care. Five dollars. I expect I’d get $5 worth of care in that case.

Like I said, I wish I had the solution. I grew up solidly middle class with a CPA father and a stay at home mom. Took lessons and went to horse shows and rode on an interschool riding team and had tons of varied riding opportunities. Kids today in the same economic situation can’t do the same.

[Mounted]

@Impractical_Horsewoman

So, let’s say that a freelance service provider chooses to focus on a more exclusive clientele, because they can work fewer hours, enjoy that type of work more, and can work a more regular schedule? If that wasn’t a horse-related business, would you feel differently?

No. But again, my objection isn’t to Matt Brown – or anyone else – embracing this approach for his own business. I think it is tone-deaf to recommend it wholesale to others without reckoning with the implications for accessibility, that’s all.

@Impractical_Horsewoman

Let’s say an SAT tutoring service is highly in demand. They raise their prices. They start marketing to much more affluent clients. The parents of students who can’t afford this get upset. The owner says, “I’ve been working hard to build my business, now I can work fewer hours and get to bed at a reasonable hour. I have to charge this to make a living, the other option is to work an insane amount of hour and charge very little.” Is that unethical?

No*, and I also don’t think it’s unethical for equestrian professionals to do the same. Tone deaf and unethical are different things.

*Caveat: I have qualms about standardized testing in general, because tutoring and teaching test-taking techniques can have such strong effects on scores that are then used to determine admissions to college and, in some cases, merit aid. I think the ethics of SAT tutoring are actually quite different and more complicated than those of horseback riding instruction.

[rulex]

@Texarkana

I honestly think where the puck is headed in terms of “middle class horse boarding” is exclusively self-care or co-op style boarding.

I have a friend who runs their place as a coop barn after running more of a full board facility for a couple of decades. They actually charge way below market rates and still have a hard time keeping stalls filled. They find that boarders will last a few years and eventually get tired of the work.

@Texarkana

But the logistics in Europe are a lot different than North America. Mainly less “sprawl.”

I would say it’s more than the sprawl but also access to services like small, regular hay deliveries. When you are doing self board it may have limited hay storage, and if you are only buying hay for 1-2 horses it’s in small quantities and that can make it more challenging to source.

@hey101

I think it’s a very valid point that some operations in the area that are being run and operated by older people where perhaps the mortgage is actually paid off and so they can keep the prices artificially low. However, those people are going to eventually retire. The kids don’t want to do it. It’s gets sold at current market value which means suddenly there’s a mortgage back in place and it’s thousands and thousands of dollars right off the bat that have to be made up in income.

I assure you, facility owners are not being entitled.

I see this a lot in my area. And when the farm sells, it’s to the buyers in the quote below!

@Renn_aissance

If you can afford a farmette in my county, you aren’t taking in boarders!

[dmveventer]

@FitToBeTied

I would argue that they are charging market value. Market value is whatever the market will bear. So if they raise prices and people keep paying it, it doesn’t matter what other barns charge.

Not if their customers are leaving like the poster said they are in this case. If the new property was nicer and had new amenities that could justify an increase, but they still may need to shift to a new clientele and change their business model accordingly (which may be their plan, who knows). Just moving the exact same business to a new property with a higher mortgage isn’t enough to support a price increase if there are comparable barns nearby that aren’t raising their prices.

I’m not saying barns should never raise their prices. There are definitely barns out there that are undercharging and could easily raise prices without driving customers away. IMO that’s just as bad as overcharging, it hurts that barn and the market as a whole in the long run. What I’m saying is that prices have to account for a lot of different variables and the business only gets to control some of them. It’s not always as simple as an increase in costs translating to an equivalent increase in prices, especially if the costs in question aren’t shared across the market (like land/mortgage prices).

I think the real problem is that too many barn owners are finding that good business planning tells them there’s no way to get all those variables to add up to a profit and they should get out entirely. It’s hard to plan your way out of rising costs, disappearing land, and a shrinking client pool. Most of those are bigger problems with the economy as a whole and not something the horse industry can realistically fix on its own.

[Impractical_Horsewoman]

And it wasn’t for this barn! (To say nothing of feeling pressured to take lessons/stay at the barn, “or the horses won’t be able to eat,” which isn’t great.)

[2bayboys]

@dmveventer

I think the real problem is that too many barn owners are finding that good business planning tells them there’s no way to get all those variables to add up to a profit and they should get out entirely. It’s hard to plan your way out of rising costs, disappearing land, and a shrinking client pool.